Jharkhand Court March 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Smt. Alice Purty and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR601(Jhr)]
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. Both the applications arise out of the same case so both have been heard together.2. The Civil Review Petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated 20.8.2002 passed in CWJC No. 2161 of 1999 (R) whereby and whereunder the Court allowed the writ petition considering the Annexure-7 appended to that writ and Annexure-10 an order passed by a learned Single Judge in MJC No. 243 of 1995 (R) and directed the respondent of the writ (who are the petitioners in the Review Petition) to pay the amounts due including 'Leave Encashment', that portion of the impugned order which directs for the payment of Leave Encashment is sought to be reviewed on the ground that in the MJC (Annexure-10, Supra) the Court has granted this benefit of Leave Encashment to the petitioners of the MJC on the concession made by the learned counsel for the State which though was against the express provisions of Annexure-1 appended to writ petition and thus that concision could not have been...
Dronendu Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2950; II(2004)DMC268
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This petition has been filed under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that when earlier bail application No. 4810 of 2003 was rejected then certain submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not recorded therein and without looking to the other materials available on record to the bail application. The order passed in B.A. No. 4810 of 2003 reads as follows :'Heard both the sides.The petitioner is the husband of the deceased wife who died in an unnatural death within two years of marriage. Allegedly she was tortured. A demand of Rs. two lakhs was also made. The postmortem report reveals the death is due to hanging.In view of the aforesaid fact, at present, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner, namely, Dronendu Jha, on bail. His prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.'2. Two questions arise (i) What is the scope of this petition whether this petition can be treated as petition for regular bail (ii) ...
Anil Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR240(Jhr)]
ORDER1. From the order passed in L.P.A. No. 639 of 2001, which the petitioner has prayed for review, it appears that the appeal was disposed of the modifying the order of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1403 of 2000 (R).2. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the said writ application with the following order which is quoted herein-below :'In the aforesaid background, the respondents, being liable to return the goods seized, if any of it stood stolen away from the place of storage, are bound to refund the amount to be calculated at the market rate. Accordingly, they are directed to make it good in favour of the petitioner by return of goods or paying the market price thereof with interest at the rate of 8% within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.'3. Therefore, what appears from the order quoted above is that the learned Single Judge directed either to return the goods to the writ petitioner or to pay the market price thereof wi...
Marshal Dahar Audogik Sahyog Samiti Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR250(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Lall, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No. 5.2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the order dated 26.07.2000, as contained in Annexure 3, whereby the Assistant Mining Officer, Ranchi cancelled the mining lease, granted in favour of the petitioner, for the rest of the period.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order, as contained in Annexure 3, cancelling his mining lease, was passed without issuing any notice to show cause and, therefore, the same is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that on 16.11.2000, the respondents issued Annexure 4 whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the mining lease be not cancelled and therefore, it would mean that the earlier order dated 27.07.2000 cancelling the minin...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Mehra and or ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC675; 2005ACJ1270; [2004(2)JCR220(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award passed by 2nd Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 79 of 1987 whereby he was awarded a sum of Rs. 3,02,816/- as compensation amount to the claimant/respondents for the death caused by motor vehicle accident.2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.3. The husband of the claimant was travelling in a jeep belonging to Allahabad Bank. On 25.3.1987 while the deceased was going for inspection of the Branch Office at Giridih one Matador bearing registration No. BPM No. 7167 came from the opposite side in high speed and dashed the jeep causing instantaneous death of the deceased. The Matador was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The deceased was getting Rs. 9,036/- per month as monthly salary and on further promotion in near future he would have got Rs. 1,048/- additional salary. The deceased was aged 45 years. The appell...
Binod Kumar Vs. Ranchi Kshetriya GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR218(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In CWJC No. 2023 of 2001 the petitioner has prayed for quashing the combined seniority list dated 9.4.2001 wherein petitioner has been shown junior to respondent No. 3 Ravi Shankar Prasad and further for quashing the order of promotion of respondent No. 3 of the Officer cadre of Grade I.2. In 1984 the petitioner along with others including respondent No. 3 appeared at Banking Service Recruitment Examination and after qualifying the written test and interview a list of successful candidates in accordance with merit was forwarded to respondent No. 1 for appointment on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier, In the said merit list petitioner was placed above respondent No, 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was appointed on 21.1.1985 and was posted at Head Office, Ranchi. The respondent No. 3 Ravi Shankar Prasad also joined as Clerk-cum-Cashier pursuant to letter of appointment dated 21.1.1985. In 1988 by office order dated 15.7.1988 a seniority list of Clerk-cum-Cashier w...
Hotel Woodland Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR224(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 2.12.2003 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi in Consumer Case No. 21/2003 and further for quashing the letter dated 20.1.2004 issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Circle, Dhanbad intimating the petitioner that the bill has been corrected and a sum of Rs. 7,03,955/- is payable to the Board.2. The petitioner is running a hotel in the town of Dhanbad. In 1999 when the petitioner was served with bill of different amounts, it challenged the same by filing CWJC No. 2970/99R. The writ petition was disposed of on 30.1.2001 directing the respondent-Board to raise fresh bill. When fresh bill was raised, the petitioner again challenged the same by filing CWJC No. 2064/2001 which was disposed of on 11.5.2001 and the matter was remitted to the Consumer Grievance Redressal F...
Dr. Santosh Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Nirmal Kumar Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR248(Jhr)]
P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J.1. On 13.4.2001, in L.P.A. No. 349 of 2000, this Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to move the State Government for granting affiliation to the commerce faculty of the college. But their Lordships added that the college must move for grant of affiliation before the University concerned with the requisite inspection fee within one month and the University, in its turn, after examining all the pros and cons, must forward its recommendations to the State Government within four months thereafter and the State Government was to take a final decision within two months thereafter. The Contempt of Court case was filed on the allegation that the directions had not been complied with by the respondents, though the college had made the necessary application accompanied by a certified copy of the concerned judgment. Though belatedly, the recognition has not been granted and in that cont...
Deo Kumar Paswan and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)BLJR1356; [2005(2)JCR418(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioners have filed the instant application under Section 482 of Cr PC for quashing the order dated 30.7.2002 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Chatra took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 504 of the IPC against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 152/2002.2. A copy of the complaint filed by complainant/opposite parties has been annexed as Annexure-1, to the application. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged inter alia that he and his wife are in physical possession of the land in question which is Gairmazarua land like other raiyati land and the same was approved for settlement after verification and report was sent by the Karamchari in favour of his wife and the settlement proceeding was going on. It is alleged that in the meantime petitioner approached the Circle Officer and tried to remit the said matter again to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. The Complainant further alleged that the proceeding which was ...
State Through Superintendent of Police Cbi, Acb Vs. Shri Chandraket Na ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3618; [2005(2)JCR431(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1.This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 16-8-2002 passed by the Special Judge CBI, Dhanabad in R. C. Case No. 7(A)/ 94(D) whereby he has closed the evidence of the prosecution and fixed the case for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C.2. It appears that a criminal case was instituted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges were framed on 30-6-1994. On 11-5-2000 prosecution evidence was closed following the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajdeo Sharma. The prosecution challenged the said order of closure before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 6499/2000 R and this Court, by order dated 28-5-2001 allowed one last indulgence to the prosecution to examine the remaining witnesses within one year from the date of the order. The order of this Court was received by the trial Court on 1-8-2001 and, accordingly, a date was fixed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »